Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kamui99/Userboxes/User Big Boobs

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was:  delete. Izno (talk) 21:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Kamui99/Userboxes/User Big Boobs

 * – (View MfD)

Contains two links, both to deleted items; entirely pointless Orange Mike  &#124;  Talk  11:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete as stupid. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't fall into the same arguments as some of the ones we've dealt with recently - it's a bit sexual, but that's literally it. However, it has no usage, and is fundamentally broken as both links don't work. So delete with no precedent set. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 21:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep although this is close to (if not absolutely) the stupidest userbox I've ever seen. While clearly unencyclopedic, a love of big milkers does not imply antipathy to the goals of the project, and it's entirely imaginable that someone might have this on their userpage while being a perfectly legitimate contributor (although someone might want to keep an eye on any redirects they create). Deleting userboxes for being stupid would be a pretty arduous task with no conceivable reward. jp×g 04:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that shouldn't be the reason, but as it's broken and unused.... I'd call the deletion clean-up of a broken template. Honestly, though, it's unused. This is basically a no-stakes debate. It really doesn't matter what we do. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 08:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete while it "does not imply antipathy to the goals of the project", I think it does go against the type of collaborative environment we're trying to create here, and I can see this being off-putting to female editors.  Hut 8.5  09:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.